Ukraine has been hitting targets "deep" inside Russia for a long time now - further than ATACMS or the export Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG can reach. Whether Ukraine use their own weapons or those purchased/gifted from others seems irrelevant. This is Russia saying "we can hit you with weapons provided by other nations, but you cannot be allowed to hit us likewise" - it's pathetic.
As for what Russia may do, they've been told publicly and privately by multiple nations: from the U.S., UK, and France, even China and India to wind their necks in with regard any nuclear escalation. However, they are very adept at asymmetric responses, and Putin has already said he would consider arming groups with anti-"western" sympathies - he probably already has.
"Escalate"? Allowing Ukraine to use the weapons it has to strike back at an aggressor in order to mitigate or reduce said aggressors ability to continue attacking is ... "escalation"? I don't think so.
If anything artificial limits have been placed on Ukraine that are not placed on other nations (or in some cases proscribed terrorist organisations) purchasing or being "gifted" weapons. Whether those weapons are from the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, RoK, whoever.
Do what the energy companies are suggesting - fix the cap at or about the current price. Establish a government backed fund that will ensure the continued operation of the energy companies. Accelerate the already underway efforts looking at realigning how the UK energy market works (that is - reduce and/or eliminate the link between gas and electricity pricing - due mainly to our over-reliance on CCGT generation). As energy wholescale costs fall over the coming years the energy companies re-pay the support costs.
It does mean we customers will endure higher energy costs for longer - but it will greatly soften the impact on the massive spikes we are set to see over the next 6+ months. It will also have the knock on effect of reducing inflationary pressures, making the need for rapid interest rate rises less likely, reducing borrowing costs.
Look again at what can be done to further enhance and accelerate investments in alternative energy production and storage. This includes looking at tackling planning regulations which so often tie up critical infrastructure projects in the UK for years (sometimes decades), too much nimbyism. Often by peeps who moved next to an existing facility (be it a windfarm, a nuclear plant, etc.) and then complain when it's suggested the plant be extended ... shocker ... who'd have thought that could happen! Invest in a massive, nation wide home insulation scheme - properly invest, not the silly little schemes they've tried so far. Which were badly thought out and badly implemented, and probably full of corruption and wastage.
At the same time continue (and back-date) the "windfall" tax on exploration and production - this wasn't "profit", this was "free money". The companies did not generate this income from improved working practices, efficiency drives, deployment of new technologies, etc. etc. - it was in nearly all senses a windfall. The oil majors are unlikely to invest it ("we don't even know what to do with all this income!" ...), and even if they did it will have absolutely no impact on the lives of UK citizens for years and years - the problem exists now, it needs a solution now.
The whole situation is made more infuriating given the UK produces 50% (+/-) of its own gas. But thanks to our exposure to the prevailing market and the ease of transport to the continent we are suffering as much (heck, more than) many other nations in Europe.
India is a _republic_ with a president as its head of state. Maybe look into the history of India post-WW2. The Commonwealth of Nations is a _loose_ grouping of independent nations. Not all of which actually had/have any historical association with the United Kingdom.
> No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations
In that case no truly independent nation should be a part of the United Nations. The UN has more "power" over its members than the Commonwealth.
I think it's probably accepted that NATO indicated to Ukraine very early on that the chances of it joining were a distant dream. Not withstanding complications relating to deep cultural and historical connections between Russia and Ukraine there were basic issues of governance, market regulation, military preparedness, etc. It's not a case of "we'd like to join NATO!" - "Sure, come on in!". However, what NATO couldn't do was publicly say "No, you cannot join, ever". So instead they were given rather weak pleasantries by NATO as to their possible joining at some future point, same for Georgia and other states.
Why couldn't NATO publicly say "No!", particularly in the many years of Russia demanding we do so? Well, in my admittedly weakly understood opinion NATO are all "typically" open free liberal democracies who believe in self-determination by their peoples. Telling a nation they cannot possibly join us because a third party nation says we cannot allow it sends a somewhat mixed message. Perhaps more importantly it would've signalled to Russia early on "sure, this is your territory - do what you wish, we won't interfere". Is that a message we want to be sending? Buffer states only remain buffer states while all sides are sure the others will retaliate if they invade - Article 5 is the ultimate guarantor of that.
What's more I very much doubt NATO saying "No!" would've stopped Ukraine from asking, again and again. Even when it became clear that any chance had vanished following the annexation of Crimea they still asked over and over. Even when the Donbass flared into open combat assisted by Russian forces. Even when Russia had rolled tanks into the territory they continued to ask. And it seems to me at least their mere "asking" to join, regardless of what NATO may have privately said (and doubtless Russia were made aware) was the issue for Putin.
NATO is an incredibly powerful military force - I don't think everyone fully understands just how powerful it is. If it wanted to take on the worlds autocrats, dictators, malign regimes, etc. it could - quite easily - without resorting to any nuclear sabre rattling. That it doesn't, that it has with minor exception - typically related to easing command and control of operations rather than "military might" of its assigned forces - remained a defensive alliance speaks volumes as to its intentions.
In fact the worst thing to come out of this war is how it is showing "might makes right" in the worst possible manner. To those nations who wish to subjugate their neighbours (or their own people) despite an overwhelming majority of the world saying "Don't! Stop!" - just get yourself some nuclear weapons and NATO, the West, the World won't/can't do much to militarily stop you. That's setting a pretty awful precedent.